I am in the middle of a mini-series on why I think the Kingdom of God is not something that can be said to be here, but only something to anticipate. I have made six arguments, a "so what" post, and a number of quotation posts. Two nights ago I wrote a state of the union explaining my curiosity at finding Premillennialism suspiciously absent from the creeds and consensuses of the major branches of Christendom. Then, last night, I wrote a followup to it. Tonight I have something small to add to these two state of the union posts.
I was thinking that it could seem ironic that I accept Tradition's canon, then turn right around and use that canon to disagree with Tradition.
So I did some introspecting and I thought I would share with you why I think doing this is ok.
I don't accept the canonicity of books of the Bible because Tradition does. In other words, I don't view the authority of the Bible as being in any way derived from Tradition. Rather, I see Tradition as recognizing the divine inspiration of the scriptures. And I don't take their word for it. I am moved by their arguments.
And so since, as I mentioned in the previous post on this matter as well as in another older post on this blog, one has no choice but to think for oneself, rather than think about which Tradition is the right one to adopt as a religious authority, I will think about which Tradition is right.
Further, it is not clear that Jesus or the apostles meant for there to ever be a religious authority (at least not in the Roman or Eastern sense). And how would we adjudicate between competing authorities? The only way is to try and see which has accurate theology. But if we are able to determine theological matters on our own, what would we need a religious authority for?
Therefore I will respect tradition highly and count it as useful and trust that in some sense the Spirit is guiding it, but I will not elevate it so highly that I won't be bold enough to break from it where I think it's beliefs are unwarranted scripturally or philosophically (and this is only relevant to my view of the Kingdom of God if it is true that candidate religious authorities indeed teach contrarily to my Premillennialism, and I have already stated that I am not convinced Premillennialism is at least not incompatible with the earliest and most popular creeds).
I was thinking that it could seem ironic that I accept Tradition's canon, then turn right around and use that canon to disagree with Tradition.
So I did some introspecting and I thought I would share with you why I think doing this is ok.
I don't accept the canonicity of books of the Bible because Tradition does. In other words, I don't view the authority of the Bible as being in any way derived from Tradition. Rather, I see Tradition as recognizing the divine inspiration of the scriptures. And I don't take their word for it. I am moved by their arguments.
And so since, as I mentioned in the previous post on this matter as well as in another older post on this blog, one has no choice but to think for oneself, rather than think about which Tradition is the right one to adopt as a religious authority, I will think about which Tradition is right.
Further, it is not clear that Jesus or the apostles meant for there to ever be a religious authority (at least not in the Roman or Eastern sense). And how would we adjudicate between competing authorities? The only way is to try and see which has accurate theology. But if we are able to determine theological matters on our own, what would we need a religious authority for?
Therefore I will respect tradition highly and count it as useful and trust that in some sense the Spirit is guiding it, but I will not elevate it so highly that I won't be bold enough to break from it where I think it's beliefs are unwarranted scripturally or philosophically (and this is only relevant to my view of the Kingdom of God if it is true that candidate religious authorities indeed teach contrarily to my Premillennialism, and I have already stated that I am not convinced Premillennialism is at least not incompatible with the earliest and most popular creeds).
"And so since, as I mentioned in the previous post on this matter as well as in another older post on this blog, one has no choice but to think for oneself, rather than think about which Tradition is the right one to adopt as a religious authority, I will think about which Tradition is right."
ReplyDeleteHow Cartesian of you! I'm deeply sympathetic with this. Two questions:
(1a) Given that the Canon doesn't contain its own criteria, what do you think the non ad hoc prima facie criteria are? (1b) Does such criteria sufficiently explain both the inclusion of the current 27 NT books, as well as the exclusion of all others?
(2) The one God in three persons metaphysic I think is central to our conception of God. Did you think a pure Sola Scriptura methodology would get you sufficiently robust formulation of it?
2. Yes very much so
ReplyDelete1b) It better
ReplyDeleteso what of 1a, Mister?
ReplyDelete1a) I dunno. Something like:
ReplyDeleteAuthenticity
Antiquity (close enough to the time of Christ)
Orthodoxy (coheres, is consistent with, and directly relevant to, the teaching of Christ and His apostles)
Catholicity (valuable to read globally and not just locally - this would be a criteria of canonicity, but not of inspiration)
Coherence (God's word will be consistent with itself and with other truths)
Being recognized as canonical by other documents we believe to be canonical is good
Inspiration
The fact that a very large number of the earliest authentic followers of Christ, including many we have reason to believe studied under the apostles directly or one mentorship removed, agreed on which books to recognize as canonical holds a great deal of weight.
As for the OT - that's easier. The biggest clincher is that we see Jesus quote the historical lists (Law, Prophets, Writings) as canonical.
Authenticity
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by this? That we have good reason to believe that S wrote it, where S = someone inspired? This just pushes the question to a higher level—viz., how do we know that S was inspired? So the question now is, why think Luke, as opposed to Clement, is inspired?
Antiquity (close enough to the time of Christ)
Clement’s 1st epistle was written, I think, probably at the same time as John’s Revelation. Thus, if Revelation is antique enough, then Clement 1 is. Furthermore, what independent reason do we have to think that this criterion is even relevant?
Orthodoxy (coheres, is consistent with, and directly relevant to, the teaching of Christ and His apostles)
If I remember right, Clement 1 meets this criterion.
Catholicity (valuable to read globally and not just locally - this would be a criteria of canonicity, but not of inspiration)
“ “
“Coherence (God's word will be consistent with itself and with other truths) Being recognized as canonical by other documents we believe to be canonical is good Inspiration.”
Hmm. This seems awfully recursive. Suppose documents D1-Dn are considered inspired, and Document Dm coheres with it. Under the supposition that Dm and D1-Dn cohere, and that we have good reason to think the latter are inspired, then that would give us, perhaps, good reason to think Dm might be inspired. But surely the criteria of coherence will not be helpful if we ask why we ought to think D1-Dn are themselves inspired. So, coherence alone won’t help us with D1-Dn.
Furthermore, Clement 1 meets this criterion.
“The fact that a very large number of the earliest authentic followers of Christ, including many we have reason to believe studied under the apostles directly or one mentorship removed, agreed on which books to recognize as canonical holds a great deal of weight.”
You seem to be articulating a limited view of apostolic succession here. This limited view would include Clement 1, and be skeptical of John’s Revelation, and perhaps omit Hebrews.
“As for the OT - that's easier. The biggest clincher is that we see Jesus quote the historical lists (Law, Prophets, Writings) as canonical.”
Hahaha. Talk about recursive. Take the earliest Gospel itself as an example. Under your Orthodoxy and Coherence criteria, Mark’s Gospel meets the standard, assuming we already have reason to think the Sadducees were wrong to disregard everything but the Pentateuch. Then, when we ask why we should think that the prophets’ works should be included in the Canon, we would say that Jesus quotes them in Mark’s Gospel. But what if we ask why were the Pharisees right and Sadducees wrong about the prophets? Appealing to Mark’s Gospel assumes what we’re trying to prove, and hence pending independent and non-circular evidence for thinking Mark’s Gospel is inspired, we have no question begging reason to think we should include the prophets themselves, which, in turn, undercuts our reason to think Mark’s Gospel itself is inspired.
Good points.
ReplyDeleteRecursivity - Not always bad thing.
ReplyDeleteApostolic Authority - Well I think that the apostles and their followers and those who administered the councils stand as witnesses and as evidences, but that's distinct from thinking they somehow have a special authority or that the scriptures derive authority from them.
I still think you have good points. I would like to study this more.
Still, you don't have to know where food came from to know that it tastes good and is nourishing.